Have you recently leased or purchased a Lexus sedan or SUV? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by Wednesday, December 19 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.Have you recently purchased (not leased) a subcompact sedan (such as a Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Chevy Sonic or Ford Fiesta)? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by Wednesday, December 26 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.

If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

I think a better analogy would be that CR reports "things that break" (although too much orange peel in the paint or a mis-aligned interior piece technically isn't "broken") while JD Powers reports "things that people gripe about".

Unfortunately, "things that people gripe about" is awfully vague. If I complain about my Ram riding rough, or my Malibu having a cramped back seat, or my Hyundai getting crappy mileage, unfortunately those get ranked right in there with engine failures, fuel tank leaks, cars stalling out, etc.

J.D. Power and Associates offers the following tips for consumers regarding vehicle dependability: Consumer perceptions of vehicle quality and dependability are often based on historical experiences or anecdotes and may be out of line with the current reality. Consumers should gather as much information as they can on the latest models from a variety of sources to make an informed decision.

That's a good reason why readers should regard reliability rankings with some suspicion, as they're really an attempt to quantify things that aren't easily quantifiable.

"Raffi Festekjian, J. D. Power&#146;s director of automotive product research, explains that the IQS was designed to capture &#147;things gone wrong&#148; with a vehicle. Each one is called a &#147;problem,&#148; and it can be &#147;either a fault in the assembly of the vehicle or a design issue.&#148; A fault might be a poorly assembled door panel or a loose electrical connection, while a design issue is something that a customer doesn&#146;t like&#151;a multifunction cruise-control stalk, for example&#151;even though the item is performing exactly as intended."

Part of the disconnect stems from most people&#146;s tendency to equate quality with an absence of defects. Back in the Eighties, when Japanese car­makers were grabbing market share from domestic companies on the strength of their superior assembly quality, many of us thought of automotive quality primarily in those terms. But Webster&#146;s concise definition of quality is &#147;the degree of excellence which a thing possesses.&#148; And the J.D. Power IQS has always taken this broader view.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I stated the surveys attempt to quantify things not easily, or in some cases at all possible to quantify.

Can someone define quantitatively a "great tasting steak" in a manner in which the general population would agree 100%? We can certainly define and quantify proper steak preparation and cooking methodology, but taste is subjective.

More from the link...

In a different vein, Porsche has struggled with brake-pad choice because of the IQS. The pads that deliver the best fade resistance and wet-braking performance are also those that generate more wheel-soiling, IQS-complaint&#150;generating dust.

One hopes that the customers who complain about the brake dust in the IQS are somewhat offset by those who praise the brakes in Power&#146;s Automotive Performance, Execution, and Layout (APEAL) study, which is designed to capture &#147;things gone right&#148; about a vehicle. It&#146;s attached to the IQS questionnaire, so it draws from the same population of respondents.

Unfortunately, the results of the APEAL study don&#146;t get the play the IQS does, suggesting that moves toward the lowest-common-denominator solutions to reduce design &#147;problems&#148; will continue. When a large majority of IQS-reported problems were defects, the survey was a powerful force in the drive toward automotive quality. But the gap between defects and design problems is closing. &#147;In 2011,&#148; according to ­Festekjian, &#147;there were still slightly more defects than design problems, but it&#146;s getting closer every year.&#148;

The Hummer gas complaints affected the 90 day Initial Quality score, they said because it did not meet customers' expectations. For that GVWR label no Monroney was required, so naive customers had no idea what to expect.

IMHO JDP is not even measuring reliability in that study.

Not sure how the Dependability study differs but I'm sure someone will chime in.

Mini is funny because they've been a the top of the APEAL study and at the bottom of the IQS study at the same time.

"Consumer perceptions of vehicle quality and dependability are often based on historical experiences or anecdotes and may be out of line with the current reality. Consumers should gather as much information as they can on the latest models from a variety of sources to make an informed decision."

What it's also saying is perceptions from previous ownership experiences can weigh into evaluations on current models.

Example: If your previous minivan had a dozen cup holders and your new sedan only has four, that could be viewed AND reported as a problem in the sedan.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the surveys are trash, but folks need to understand the basis for the surveys, and how the data is compiled and ranked.

A highly rated car is probably going to be a good car, and a poorly rated vehicle is probably going to have some unhappy owners. Other than that, I wouldn't put place too much reliance on how the vehicles rank individually in a listing of top to bottom, good to bad, etc.

The thing is - there is NO valid statistical and bulletproof way to know how realible cars are. Even if the manufacturers were to give out their own proprietary information, they might measure it differently from one to the other.

Yet some reasonable statistical yet imperfect data is better than no data. And JDP and CR are going to be better (not perfect, but better) than the anecdotes of your Aunt Agnes who had her 2008 Carslam Broughm last 250K miles, or your son Sloppy whose engine blew up on his brand new 2012 Punkweeny Racer.

"Our goal is by the 2015 to '16 time frame to be single-A investment grade," Akerson said in a roundtable interview in advance of next week's North American International Auto Show in Detroit. "Ultimately we have to be profitable in everything we do."

"We have the oldest portfolio in the industry in this country," Akerson said, a by-product of the bankruptcy-induced interruption in the company's spending on product development. That's in the past, now that GM expects to spend $8 billion annually to fund product development.

"This is going to be a strong year for product introductions, not only in North America, but around the globe. In 2013 and '14 the sun will be at our backs. These will be good years not only domestically but in our international operations."

But he added a caveat:

"It would be foolish not to footnote that there seems to be a lot of macro-economic uncertainty out there," a reference to the New Year's Day tax fight in Washington and the looming budget and debt-ceiling wrangling coming within the next 60 days or so.

Akerson expressed cautious optimism on the automaker's turnaround of its chronic money-losing operations in Europe, saying he sees "green shoots" of progress extending beyond already announced plant closings and 2,500 job cuts last year. Labor contracts are being reworked; assets are being closed or sold; and, in a distinct echo of Ford Motor Co., production will be matched to demand, not hope.

The 64-year-old CEO also affirmed GM's alliance with PSA Peugeot Citroën of France; confirmed that GM is determined to place long-term bets on developing markets to build what he called a "rest-of-world manufacturing" presence; said GM is in discussions with the United Auto Workers union about lump-sum pension buyouts, He wouldn't comment further.

AIG is running commercials thanking tax payers for their support and telling them they made a profit off of them (then in the background is scheming to sue to (govt/you and I as taxpayers) for bailing them out when bankruptcy may have been more profitable longer term).

I kinda hope they do sue because then they'll present credible arguments as to why bailouts are bad and ill advised.

If GM on the other hand, does pay everything back.... people will say it wasn't a bailout, but the taxpayers made out with a profit (like some do about Chrysler's first bailout). I can steal all the money from your bank, and return it years later too. You might make a profit but I bet I can beat the profit you settle for in a bailout using that money to make money.

You know me, I don't let a survey sway me, but I don't think there's is a whole lot different than CR's. I mean, when the Juke goes from much-worse-than-average to much-better-than-average in one model year, one has to wonder just how different the 2012 is from the 2011--certainly not much from what meets the eye.

While I sometimes sense a feeling of bias in some of CR's reviews, at least I'm not worried too much by the researchers being directly influenced by the manufacturer's payments to the reviewers.

OTOH, this is from Jdpower.com ...

J.D. Power and Associates industry benchmarking studies generally are not funded by the companies that are measured. The company's syndicated studies are funded and owned by the company and based on the aggregated responses of consumer perceptions of product quality and customer satisfaction--not the opinions of J.D. Power and Associates. After the study results are published, manufacturers, retailers, suppliers, and other industry participants can choose whether or not to purchase the study. Ownership of study data is key to the company's independence and unbiased position. This third-party perspective enables J.D. Power and Associates to provide clients and consumers with credible and clear feedback. Although J.D. Power and Associates does conduct custom research for many clients to help drive quality and customer satisfaction improvement, results of this type of proprietary research are owned by the clients that commission the research and the results are not made available to the public.

Didn't I mention this was a dog-of-a tag line for Chevy? Looks like the execs read some of my posts! :blush:

"Chevy Runs Deep," the previous tagline was ushered in by former marketing chief Joel Ewanick and U.S. agency Goodby Silverstein & Partners. Ewanick brought in the Omnicom shop after he tossed aside longtime Campbell-Ewald and Publicis, and they unveiled the tag during the World Series in 2010. GM was immediately met with wide criticism from car buffs who claimed that "Chevy Runs Deep" lacked substance.

Jeff Goodby, one of the partners at Goodby, came to the tagline's defense, predicting that it would eventually have legs. Despite continued criticism and a global review, GM said in October of 2011 that it was sticking by its choice. But a year later, amid slips in market share and following the ouster of Ewanick, GM was openly announcing the possibility of axing it.

Burying "Chevy Runs Deep" comes at a time when General Motors is focused on markets like India and Russia, and market share for its largest brand, Chevy, has been slipping. It's also been cutting marketing spending. Domestically, GM spent $1.18 billion during the first three quarters of 2012 compared with $1.30 billion during the same period in 2011 -- a 9.3 percent decline, according to Kantar Media. The marketing spending on Chevy for the first nine months of 2012 was $663 million, down from $746 million, an 11 percent decline, according to Kantar Media.

So how long can we expect "Find New Roads" to stay intact? Batey has asked Mary Barra and Ed Welburn, GM's heads of product development and design, respectively, to help with making the theme a part of company culture going forward. Unlike those taglines that have come and gone, he predicts this one will stick around for at least a decade.

Ok, I'm sure I can come up with a better marketing tagline for GM. How about "Oh, what a feel..." no wait...Ok, I've got it, "Zoom..."...wait, no...maybe "It's what makes..."....naah, what about "Have you driven a...."....no, maybe "The Ultimate..."....wow, this is really hard. :shades:

Actually, I do have hopes for Chevy's new tagline. It's got potential if they back it right. Here's a hint GM: make it about the cars.

In forty years of perusing the mag, don't ever remember a change like that. Truly.

If you read one of my recent posts, it makes complete sense for CR:

1 - vehicle is older2 - rating is a *relative* comparison to the other vehicles of that year. If other vehicles of a different year are more or less reliable, the relative rating can change. Also, a vehicle could have parts that tend to fail at 12 or 15 months.

Your comment seems to think that the rating says a vehicle has twice as many problems a year later, and that's not the case.

I would buy that thinking about Power's results...if they published nothing bad about any of the makers. Did they think up front that Audi, BMW, VW, Subaru, Nissan, and Mini wouldn't buy their results but only Chevrolet and Toyota and some others would?

And as far as the Juke goes, I'll stand by this statement: in forty years of looking at CR's reliability results, I've never seen this kind of difference. This has to be an example of at least some sample error. That's OK, it's inevitable. Even CR seemed a little embarrassed about it as in the text about the Juke, all they said was "Reliability should be average", with no comment whatsoever about the meteoric (seriously) difference between '11 and '12.

I bet even people 30 and under have heard of "See the USA......in your Chevrolet".

Why not do an updated version? Today's pop stars...vary them for different commercials. Show some of the heritage cars...and they arguably have the best heritage out there...along with new product.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Re-invent the wheel, when it's apparent what has worked previously? Loved their magazine ads, too, with a family next to their shiny Chevy at a historic or other vacation spot in the U.S.